God´s Ultimate Agenda

Introduction:

Several aspects will be taken into account when discussing how, if at all, the Christian Church of the Apostolic Age was a revival of the faith of ancient Israel as exemplified in the Law and the Prophets.  This paper will outline the various views and will briefly examine how this changed the course of God’s agenda in history.  The following areas will be covered:

 •Monotheism

•Messianism

•Prophecy

•Gender Equality

•Universalism

•Sacrifices

Monotheism:

Despite radical differences between Judaism and Christianity, these two Monotheistic religions share striking similarities. One of these similarities is the monotheistic concept of God. The concept of Monotheism, although very incipient could be detected in the Patriarchal narratives (cf. Genesis 35.2), where Jacob demonstrated preference for Monotheism. Baker defines it “as rudimentary Monotheism, a momentary veneration of only one deity during a crisis, or a more persistent worship of one God without denying the existence of others.”¹ However, after the patriarchal period the concept became more developed, and in this way within the Mosaic era this same concept becomes clearer (cf. Deuteronomy 6.4). Therefore, Bright argues that even after the amplification of the concept it still was not possible to reach its peak and due to technical hitches, many scholars seek some compromise words to define the Mosaic period: incipient Monotheism, implicit Monotheism, practical Monotheism, or the like.²

In view of this, we conclude that neither the Patriarchal nor the Mosaic era presents us with a solid view of Monotheism. Thus, it appears that the full understanding of Monotheism came at the prophetic era. Fohler comments “up to this time one can speak solely of a practical monotheism that bound Israel to Yahweh notwithstanding the existence of other gods.” ³ That is exactly how Deutero-Isaiah portrayed Yahweh. He portrays Yahweh as all-powerful, unconditional creator, Lord of heavenly hosts and the forces of nature; no earthly power could withstand him, or any likeness whatever represents him (cf. Isaiah 40.12-26; 44.9-20). 

Having introduced in brief the Old Testament view on Monotheism the New Testament concept must now be considered. The New Testament presents us with a more developed concept of God regarding the Old Testament. The New Testament exposes the uniqueness of the Godhead implicit in the Old Testament. Athanasius said: “…Since there is only one Form of Godhead in the indivisible unity of this self-revelation as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we believe that he is eternally triune in himself.”⁴ The concept of Trinity is seen throughout the Old Testament (cf. Isaiah 45.5; 9.6; Judges 15.14; 16.20). These passages individually reveal the deity of each person of the Godhead. Therefore, the New Testament expands the concept once it presents passages, which comprises the Godhead into one (cf. Luke 3.21-22; 12.8-10; I John 5.7; Ephesians 4.4-6). Athanasius said: “…It is indeed through the Trinity that we believe in the Unity of God, but it is also through acknowledgement of the Oneness and identity of being in the Son and the Spirit with the Father, that faith in the Holy Trinity takes its perfect and full form.”⁵ In view of this we conclude that, besides clarifying the concept of the Godhead, the New Testament reinforces the uniqueness and absoluteness of God contained in the Old Testament, given that it is also against the worship of other gods (cf. I Corinthians 8.4; Revelation 21.8), other fundamental requisite which underpins the unity of the Godhead.

Messianism:

As starting point the first thing to bear in mind is that, the Jews do not accept the New Testament as God’s revelation. They accept the Law, composed basically of ordinances, ceremonials and prescriptions, which they call the Law of Moses (cf. Exodus Chapters 20 to 24). Philips says: “…The foundations of Judaism were laid–the God given religious system of the Hebrew people, all centring on the Tabernacle, the sacrifices, and the priesthoods.”⁶ Consequently, because their difficulty to believe in the New Testament as God’s revelation the Jews do not accept Jesus as the Messiah promised in the Old Testament. They misunderstood the spiritual Messianic character of Jesus’ mission (cf. John 1.11). They saw Jesus as a revolutionary; someone who was trying to cause a revolution in the entire Palestine (cf. Luke 23.5), but not the Messiah. They expected a political redeemer who would set them free from Roman captivity (cf. Luke 24.21). Obviously, the Jewish view of God also contributed to this rejection. Since they view God as ‘pure spirit’ who is far from human, they could not accept that God could take human form in the incarnation explained in John 1.1.  In spite of, says Küng, the fact that Judaism views the Word of God functioning as a kind of mediator between God and human beings.⁷ It infers, concludes Küng, that all the proclamation of Christ, as the Word incarnate, has repressed this notion in Jewish theology.⁸

In addition to this, because their obstinate spiritual mentality the Jews are also unable to accept the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Küng explains: “…The Jewish tradition has always held unshakeably to a basic truth of Jewish faith, then it is the ‘Shema Israel’, ‘Hear   O Israel’, Yahweh is our God, Yahweh alone.”⁹ Küng understands this confession as a shut door to the acceptance and consequent repudiation of any dualism and trinitarianism, because it infers the unity and uniqueness of God.¹⁰

In juxtaposition to the erroneous concept of Jesus presented above, Phillips says that “there is hardly a place in the Hebrew Cannon that does not underline the truth that the Messiah was to die for sin”¹¹.  Psalm 22; Isaiah 53; Psalm 69 are verses which clearly speak of the Messiah (Jesus) and the cross, thus explaining fully the role of the Messiah in God’s agenda. Furthermore, theology of the New Testament identifies Jesus as the Messiah, promised in the Old Testament. Jesus himself claimed to be the anointed one promised by God (cf. Matthew 5.4; 11.10; 13.14; 21.42; 26.56; Luke 4.20-21; 22.37; 24.24, 27; John 5.39,40,46-47; 15.25). The New Testament writers appealed to the Old Testament to assert the Messianic character of Jesus (cf. Acts 3.18; 10.43; 13.29; 17.2-3; Matthew 2.4-6; Romans 1.2; I Corinthians 15.3-4; I Peter 2.5-6).  These verses reveal the spiritual character of Jesus’ ministry as opposed to that of Jewish expectancy of a political and revolutionary Messiah. Champlin defines Messianism as belief in an individual, group or nation, sufficiently powerful to transform or revolute the social and religious order.¹² This is exactly how the profile of the Messiah longed for by the nation was to be and not a spiritual saviour. I propound that because this pseudo-concept of a Messiah who, would set the nation free from the burden of the Roman Emperor and establish an earthly messianic kingdom, Jesus became a stumbling block (cf. Matthew 21.42; Acts 4.8-11 and I Peter 2.6-8). 

Therefore, in the light of what has been said, McDowell says that the New Testament and its writers present a completely different view as opposed to the Jewish’s erroneous concept, relying on two aspects of Jesus’ life to prove his Messianic character. Firstly, the resurrection and secondly the fulfilment of the prophecies (cf. Acts 2.31; II Corinthians 15.3-4).¹³ In conclusion, the New Testament offers us solid basis to confirm Jesus’ Messianic credentials. Thus through the combination of teachings contained in the New Testament, which is implicitly found in the Old Testament we realise that Jesus had other type of mission to fulfil. Jesus had a spiritual mission as opposed to that of his fellow countries’ expectancy.                

Prophecy:

In Numbers 11.29 Moses is in favour of the freedom, which must be conceded to those who prophesied. He desired that all God’s people could prophesise. Champlin understands this as a sign that many received the prophetic gift, though only certain national prophets became familiar to us.¹⁴ The Old Testament presents national personages who were seen as seers and whose help was required in times of need and crisis to solve personal as well as national problems. For instance, Moses was the first national prophet linked to Israel (cf. Deuteronomy 18.15-19).

 

In the New Testament the Apostle Paul follows the same line of arguments as Moses in the Old Testament (cf. I Corinthians 12.10; 14.3-5). Ulonska argues that despite this similarity between Moses and Paul regarding the access to prophesy for everyone, it never became a reality during the time of the Old Testament.¹⁵ Given this, we assume that the New Testament expands this and makes it available to everybody. Aune suggests that “there is a widespread view that in early Christianity all Christians were potential, if not actual, prophets.”¹⁶

The New Testament also presents the prophetic ministry to the same level as the Old Testament (cf. Acts 21.10-11; Ephesians 4.11). Ulonska confirms this and says that the prophetic ministry is seen through the operation of either the gift itself (see Philip’s daughters in Acts 21.9), through the ministry itself (see Agabus in Acts 21.10-11) and through the ministry of the Word (cf. Ephesians 4.11 and Acts 13.1).¹⁷ Thus, we assume that there are three distinct ways of prophesying presented in the New Testament. Firstly, there is the prophecy given within the congregational setting, which can be applied to Philip’s daughters, because they prophesied. Secondly, the function itself, once Agabus is named prophet and lastly, the ministry of prophet presented in Ephesians 4.11 and Acts 13.1. Aune says that: “A distinction is often made between prophets (i.e. those whom the designation prophet is applied and who prophesy with some regularity) and, those who prophesy (i.e. the act of prophesying by random individuals usually within the congregational settings).”¹⁸ Petts reinforces this and says that “it would be a mistake to think that everybody is gifted to be one of the 4.11 gifts,”¹⁹ or have prophetic ministry as in this case. Nevertheless, everybody can prophesy and make use of the gift, because in the light of the New Testament everyone has access to it.

Gender Equality:

In the ancient biblical world the role of the woman was reduced to the duty of generating children and looking after the domestic needs (cf. Genesis 18.6; 24.11; Proverbs 31.10-31). However, nowadays the situation is not different in certain religious circles such as in Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism and so on where the woman is seen as an object and nothing else. For example, Barclays reports Josephus, a Jewish historian and contemporary of Paul, to have written; ‘The woman is inferior to man in every way’.”²⁰

Christianity, however, elevates the role and the condition of women with respect to their value. For instance, Luke 8.1-3 explains how Jesus and the twelve were supported by a group of women from their means, giving us understanding that there was from Jesus’ side an acceptance of them on equal terms despite being in an antagonist Jewish society regarding the role of the women. Another text, which elevates the role of the women, is Ephesians 5.25-28. This compares the women with the Church of Christ and states that a man should love respect and honour his wife in the same measure Jesus did with his Church. In Galatians 3.28 we observe that in God’s sight men and women are equal, given that the text does not make distinctions about the sexes, stating that all are one in Christ Jesus. Furthermore, the creation account says that God created male and female in his own image (cf. Genesis 1.27). Thus, these texts serve to nullify the pseudo concept that women are second-class citizens, or an inferior caste of human beings as defended by secular religions.       

Having introduced the subject we shall be changing our direction towards another view on the matter; the women in the church’s context. To begin, we can say that the early Church allowed the women to serve God and even cases of ordination among them may be detectable in the New Testament (cf. Romans 16.1). Champlin says that Paul describes Phoebe as our sister, who is serving the Church in Cenchrea and the Greek term diάconos used by Paul can mean either deacon or deaconess.²¹ Other texts, which may be considered evidence that the women were active in the early Church are Acts 21.9 and I Corinthians 11.5, which reveal to us that they were used by God in utterances’ gifts such as prophecy.

Regardless of the fact that the New Testament presents us with several proofs that women were active in the early Church there is a polemic issue around their role in the contemporary Church.  There is much debate over the role of women in Church because of the polemic passage in I Corinthians 14.34-35. At first sight, Paul’s endorsement of women praying and prophesying in Church seems to be in conflict with his statement that women should keep silent in the gatherings. Banks, however, presents a view, which certainly brings balance into the debate. He comments: “…The wives have been interrupting the meetings with questions about things said within it. If more than that were involved, then Paul would not single out this one problem without any reference to others.”²² Banks goes on to say that; “…the injunction to ‘keep in silence’ does not itself necessarily possess an absolute sense and must always be interpreted by the context in which it occurs.”²³ Women did not have many instructions concerning religious’ matters, yet in Christian gatherings they could be present and bring their contributions to it in a number of ways. Banks concludes and says that it should not be a motif of surprise that in a Church like that at Corinth, where there was an excess of liberty, wives felt free to inquire of their husband concerning things they could not understand.²⁴

Another element that may reinforce women’s equality is Jesus’ attitude towards them. He broke men’s traditions not just by using women but also by talking with them publicly without any kind of prejudice (cf. John 4.27). Barclay reinforces this and says: “Jesus was not a man bound by tradition. In his life and ministry we find him consistently framing his actions by his own theology rather than by that of his contemporaries.”²⁵ Champlin explains that, according to the Talmud and the Midrasch, which gave little importance to the woman, a man should not go against his own cultural/religious background. It included avoiding talking to a woman in public, yet she was his own wife.²⁶ This can explain the amazement of the disciples towards Jesus’ attitude regarding the Samaritan woman (cf. John 4.27). In view of all that has been said, we can observe that the New Testament besides elevating the role of the women also allows us to understand that both men and women may serve and work together in the building up of God’s kingdom.

Universalism:

In God’s perspective universalism was always something beyond theory; it was something to be put into practice. God Himself elaborated upon ways of turning it into reality. Luke points out that God intentionally planned the day of Pentecost for the pouring out of the Spirit. On that specific day at least fifteen Roman provinces were represented there. Pate perceives that there is an ignorance regarding the event itself, because many do not understand its nature and think that, the importance abides only in the fact the disciples have spoken in other tongues.²⁷ In view of this, Pate calls our attention to the fact that somehow the listeners and what they heard had its importance, given that they were Jews, Hellenists from the Diaspora, trilingual speakers who would cause the missionary expansion to develop more effectively.²⁸ So it has been demonstrated that Luke connects the event with the prophetic fulfilment predicted by Joel eight centuries before. This means the beginning of the last days. Bruce notices that ‘The last days’ began with Christ’s first advent and will end with his second advent; they are the days which the age to come overlaps the present age, hence the assurance with which Peter could quote the words of Joel and declare ‘This is that.’²⁹ 

However, it is evident that the New Testament restored the universality of God’s plan, which Israel had missed. In light of what we see regarding the centripetal missionary role of Israel in the Old Testament, it is clear that the purpose or goal of the Church, as the New Israel of God, continues where Israel left off. Acts 1.8 were the last words of Jesus while on earth. Pate advocates that these words determine the centrifugal mission of the Church, which should break cultural and geographical barriers to proclaim the kingdom of God.³⁰ Klaus interprets this as a recovery of God’s original plan, given that its universality is taken into action.³¹    

The Parable of the tenants also clarifies the concept of universality contained in the New Testament. In it we can observe God’s primary aim by calling Israel God’s vineyard. Through his care and labour He intended to extract fruit from it but this proved to be in vain. He demonstrates his love by sending his servants (prophets), but without results. Finally he sends his own son (Jesus) thinking they would respect him, but they killed him instead. In this way, God in his sovereignty put Israel aside and rented the vineyard to other tenants (Church), who in turn were meant to bear fruit (cf. Matthew 21.33-45). The primary cause by which it happened was the rejection of God’s son by the Jewish’s people (cf. John 1.12-13). Stronstad articulates that the acceptance by the Church of Jesus’ Messianic credentials and the age of the Spirit would empower the Church to depart on mission and consequently fulfil God’s plan.³² Thus, we conclude that God originally planned that Israel could have a centrifugal strategy in its endeavour to glorify his name among the nations, but they did not. Thus, the Church took hold of this and entered into God’s plan.     

      

Sacrifices:

Jonathan says that Hebrews is the Christian interpretation of the sacrificial system and demonstrates that the tabernacle and the offerings were ‘a shadow of the realities’, which were substituted by Jesus’ perfect sacrifice (cf. Hebrews 10.1).³³ Brown states that the purpose of the Epistle to the Hebrews is to show that Jesus, the Mediator of the New Covenant, has a more excellent ministry than Aaron and his Sons, who were mediators of the Old Covenant.³⁴  The first mention of sacrifices as a substitute for sin is found in Genesis, and this implies that blood would be the required element for atonement (cf. Genesis 3.21 and Hebrews 9.22). These sacrifices were instituted later when the tabernacle was set up. The priests were to make these sacrifices on a regular basis and once a year the high priest for all the people. Therefore, as requirement for atonement of sins the shed blood should function as external regulations applying until the time of the new order (cf. Hebrews 9.1-8). Brown comments that the imperfect nature of these services is further illustrated in the words of the author, which seem to contain a reason why they ‘could not make the worshipper perfect, as pertaining to his conscience’.³⁵ Owen corroborates Brown and says that: “…outwardly, the sacrifices dedicated, sanctified, consecrated, as the author confirms in chapter 9.13, but only in certain aspect. They could not do this for the conscience of the sinner before God.”³⁶

In view of the inefficacy of these sacrifices it was required that, a New Covenant involving the person of Jesus, who as perfect man could be able to inaugurate a new cycle in God’s agenda. Hebrews 9.26b says: “…But now he (Jesus) has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.” Jonathan asserts: John the Baptist who functioned as a line between the Old Testament and New Testament presented Jesus as the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world. There is without a shadow of doubt a parallel between the Old Testament system and Jesus’ vicarious death in his presentation (cf. John 1.14).³⁷ This was the first mention of Jesus as God’s sacrifice for atonement of sins. However, it is noteworthy to mention that Jesus not only cleansed the sins of those who are part of the New Covenant but also of those from the Old Covenant (cf. Hebrews 9.13,14-15b). Consequently, Jesus’ sacrificial death besides paying the penalty for our sins also gives us access to heaven, or the Most Holy place, making of us priests before God (cf. Hebrews 10.19 and I Peter 2.9).

 

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the superiority of that presented in the New Testament orientation may be noticed by the fact that, it expands and amplifies the spiritual contents of the Old Testament. All the points discussed and developed during the course of this essay are in one way or another implicitly in the Old Testament cannon. Thus, this new perspective introduced a new era in God’s agenda and made the shadows implicit in the OT became a reality.

    Reginaldo de Melo

  Pastor/Teacher/Writer

   BD   BTh   MTh

CV in Christian Ministry